A challenge to anyone......

[Peter Jacobs]

"I made the request to get this thread deleted , I hit the button and typed out my reasons wishing for it's removal, I have no idea what happens after , or where it went, clearly it ain't working, , and as you are a moderator, you now know anyway, so you can remove this thread , if you want to know my reasons you can e-mail me ......or not, either way I do not care."

Well, something has clearly gone astray, but given our 'history' I'll leave it to the other Moderators to remove the thread, if they so see fit.

It only seems like the fairest thing to do.

(back to ignore mode, thank you)



Chris, Neil, please deal with this as you see fit.

 

[Gorgeous Bob Bradford]

What "History"? you say things I do not agree with, I post an opposing view, you retort and so on, isn't that called debating the issue?

As for going back to "Ignore Mode" well, thats your choice,it matters not to me.

 

[JIMMY---PAAS]

To the Moderators; If this thread is going to be closed, will yous please wait untill Bob; Answers my question PLEASE.<blockquote class=quoteheader>
</blockquote><blockquote class=quote><blockquote class=quoteheader>JIMMY ( P A A S ) wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>

Ok Bob; Here,s a question for you.

What is this new Trust going to do for the course angler in Scotland ?.</blockquote></blockquote>

 

[Baz (Angel of the North)]

You posed a fair enough question at the begining Bob.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Gorgeous Bob Bradford]

Sorry Jimmy, I got side tracked, I suggest you contact Angling Trust and ask them directly for a definitive answer, you will find plenty of links to their website , I do not know the answer to your question.

 

[Wolfman Woody]

Leave this thread alone, Chris & Neil.

Threads only get deleted if they become personally offensive along the lines of race, religion, or sex. Me calling someone a t!t does not normally qualify.

/forum/smilies/smile_smiley.gif

Bob, you are trying to do a good job defending the AT and I do respect you for that. Just try to find some new angles instead of regurgitating the AT website. Think on your own feet instead of believing what someone else has told you.

Jimmy, be patient! Your question may take some time to find an answer to. /forum/smilies/wink_smiley.gif

 

[Gorgeous Bob Bradford]

Baz, thanks for the support, but I don't think I will bother in the future mate, this site is a real eye opener , there is plenty of evidence on view to see how angling got to be so badly represented in the past, some people are so entrenched with their views, they will never embrace change, even if that change is for the general good of the sport/pastime they "love", it's all very sad...........but the good news is, they are now powerless to resist and their views are redundant.

 

[Baz (Angel of the North)]

The only reason I would not join the A.T. is because I am more confused than ever after what has gone on in this thread.

However, I am big enough to realise that, that is not a good enough reason not to join.

Keep the thread on.

 

[Baz (Angel of the North)]

And you are big enough to stay with it Bob.

 

[The bad one]

As I'm on the Oracle Woodhouse's Ignore list I'll have to shout this to get a response.

"Not only has it been confirmed to me that no one has been appointed with said accreditation, but if anyone from the old groups was so gifted, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now and there'd have been no need to create a new body! The old one with the talent would have taken over years ago. QED!"

I CHALLENGE YOU TO SAY WHO HAS CONFIRMED THIS TO YOU ?

 

[The bad one]

PJ

"and they base their campaigns on sound science rather than sheer weight of (imagined) numbers of anglers."

By this are you saying that AT and the groups that formed itwon't/doesn't base their campaigns on SOUND SCIENCE?

What evidence have you to backup your statement?

Not wishing to diminishany scientific work they are doing, there is no mention of S&TA sponsoring any research work on their website. None of the papers referenced on their website re their campaigns is attributed to them.

It looks very much as if they have done a literature search of other peoples work and published them on their site to me. Something any pro-active group can do and does do to provide information evidence to rally the troops behind a particular campaign.

As for your jibe about imagined numbers, as of last week they had 38.5 thousand members. Perhaps you missed that report on this site by an FM member.

Those are actual members Peter, as recorded on the FM membersmembership return from AT.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Phil,

I certainly didn't miss the reported number of anglers who have joined the AT, the near 39k is <u>a commendable effort</u> in the first couple of weeks, and I think it already <u>meets the target for 2009</u> that ML mentioned earlier.

The 'jibe' as you put it was aimed at the 'imagined' 4 million anglers that some of the leading players in the AT have previously cited.

The only figure that we can place any faith in surely has to be the EA's 1.3 million issued licenses. In fact, last week I wrote to the EA asking for a breakdown of the 1,3 million to try to get to a more meaningful estimate of regular Coarse anglers when compared to daily, weekly and Game licenses issued.

Regarding the other quote, that was from an e-mail sent to me, so I cannot divulge the origin without the author's permission.

If you were a member of the S&TA then you'd get the magazine that regularly updates members on the progress of the ongoing scientific-based studies and other work.

 

[Cakey]

Im still amazed at how many times Bob wants me to pay to fish

I pay taxes

I pay council taxes

I pay rod licences

I pay day tickets

and now I have to pay £20 a year because none of the above can keep my waters clean !

go and block a road ans see who nicks you

go and pollute a road and see who nicks you

theres no ACA SAA /AT groups there to do it for them !

by the way Im a member but my arguement is I shouldnt need to be..........................

 

[Richard Farrow]

Very good point Cakey, succinct and well made.

Cost of tackle, with taxes on it.

Cost of bait with taxes on it

Cost of fuel with .........

 

[coelacanth]

<blockquote class=quoteheader>Peter Jacobs wrote (see)</blockquote><blockquote class=quote>In fact, last week I wrote to the EA asking for a breakdown of the 1,3 million to try to get to a more meaningful estimate of regular Coarse anglers when compared to daily, weekly and Game licenses issued.
</blockquote>

Could have saved yourself the bother, it's in this week's Angling Times.

I think this is all simply a few children who won't play nicely because no-one asked them to be team captains, they've gone through a range of excuses why not and now it's because that nasty boy from the North called them names.

 

[Fred Bonney]

Wrong Thread.

 

[Cakey]

sorry but I thought it was freedom of choice .......................................

the thread would have been better if it was along the lines of " Ive joined these are my reasons why "

 

[coelacanth]

Removed due to a misinterpretation /forum/smilies/thinking_smiley.gif

 

[Fred Bonney]

Sorry Mr Coelacanth,where does it say that?

I posted on the wrong thread, at 09.30, please note edited 09.49!

If you want to see what I did say go

Here

 

[davestocker]

Peter, my omission of the S&TA from the list of subscription costs for various bodies was clearly a Freudian slip, revealing my doubts about the wisdom of the S&TA's move to charitable status.

We've had an issue arise in Cumbria that could have shut down our largest rainbow trout fishery, Esthwaite Water (also a fine pike fishery, thanks to the trout). I suspect that the S&TA in its new guise would have had to support the moves to prevent the stocking of rainbows, and the subsequent closure of the fishery, rather than support the interests of anglers, who value this fishery as part of a diverse mix in the county, and are not hidebound by the 'eco-fundamentalism' of bodies whose remit is conservation/preservation.

Anglers are conservationists, but their view of conservation is not necessarily the same as that of other bodies established to conserve this and that. Which is exactly why we need the Angling Trust to be free of the constraints that the S&TA is now under.